It's funny, having learnt Foucault through a French university education in philosophy, that this Anglosaxon perspective completely omits 'Les mots et les choses', translated as 'The Order of Things' - in France, this is often seen among philosophers as the work that defined Foucault's approach. Read it and you understand the method and, of course, the madness in it, that he employed in his other works. For a documentary of only 40 minutes, I'm left wondering whether it wasn't simply the lure of the gory details that drove the film makers, rather than a desire to reveal the man, of whom such details are an integral part, but only one. And also, I would be of those who think the overarching influence of Nietzsche upon his thought should also be included. But a very enjoyable watch, thanks to the uploader.
Exactly. One of his most beautiful and instigating works. But do you really believe that the mind of the America academia who has numerous suspicious "thinkers" idolized can understand "Les Mots er le Choses"? "Ceci n'est pas un pipe. :)
"The madness of desire, insane murders, the most unreasonable passions - all are wisdom since they are a part of the order of nature. Everything that morality and religion, everything that a clumsy society has stifled in man, revives in the castle of murders. There man is finally attuned to his own nature." --Michael Focault, 'Madness and Civilization'
Good quote. I have been attracted by Taoism, for instance, which has an appeal to a natural order. The natural order would include madness of desire, insanity, murder, unreasonable passions, but they depend on circumstances. For instance, a murder would be in response to circumstances, according to the Taoist view. To commit a murder simply for the fun of it, would not be according to nature. Water and how it behaves is usually the image used to teach about the Tao or the Way. Insanity is a special case, however, but it could be compared to cancer. If both these conditions are untreatable, then there isn't much we can do. How long should the family care for the insane person? When do they turn over their responsibility to the state? This calculation what be a practical one, not simply an emotional one, for the Taoist.
Quoting Madness and Civilization like that can say nothing about the thought of Focault. In the book he is channeling historical views on madness. Thus. The quote could be attributed to any period and any people filtered through the mind of Focault.
Finally a documentary on a philosopher which looks not only at the biography, but makes a good effort to bring the ideas as well down to us commoners. Very good.
If one knew nothing of Foucault before watching this documentary, not much would have changed after watching it. This is all breadth and no depth - Foucault's legacy would have been better served if the makers of this documentary perhaps focused on his theories of sexuality, justice or class. Still, I guess this was watchable.
I would personally rather say his later inquiries about genealogy, parrhesia, the hermeneutics of the self etcetera. At least, is it is depth you're looking for.
A doc focusing on the personal life of Foucault. In Foucault's eyes: could there possibly be anything less interesting--more loathesome? He would say this is completely missing the point, an approach pandering to temporal, personal details while caring little for ideas.
strange how the image of Buddha was shown when spoken about the discovering of true self, sort of misleading, as the Buddha actually discovered that there is no true self. Hence, end of struggle, start of liberation.
That is not entirely true. The true self is the soul (not the mind), which is connected to the supersoul (= God), therefore it is the same as the supersoul, therefore everyone and everything is God --> liberation.
It is a good introductory documentary but it does focus on the more sensational aspects of Foucault's work - ignoring The Archeology of Knowledge, The Order of Things and The Birth of the Clinic. Its time for a new more balanced documentary film of Foucault, or even a film/television series looking at his life and work.
Agreed. Also almost no one covers his late acceptance of liberal conceptions of Rights theory if for nothing else than a line of defense against wrongful attacks from power.
Camille Paglia is totally correct in her criticisms of Foucault. But her criticisms apply equally to her own self-indulgent, half-baked, pseudo-intellectual theories which are designed to shock more than advance knowledge.
chel3SEY they actually don't. She's incredibly factually incorrect about basic things, like claiming Foucault didn't read any of the foundational Greek scholars. He read *many* - he even learned Greek (and German) to be able to read original texts. There's direct Greek content in almost all of his lectures and books.
Nothing Paglia has ever said, has been correct (nor properly argued for). Perhaps that the Earth isn't flat, but that's about it. On a side-note: her way of talking is absolutely repulsive; she constantly interrupts _herself_ as if she's struggling to think coherently about whatever she's mouthing on about.
Could someone please direct me to a link or give me a little more information on Herbert Gilbert (?), this man who filmed himself dying of aids? I can't seem to find any information on him on the internet. Thank you to whoever can point me in this direction!
A person need only to realize that in Foucault's era people who were diagnosed insane were routinely lobotomiesed, put in restraints, electroshock treatment. He was not the first or only person to criticize the arbitrary ideas of insanity. Laing pointed out the absurdities as well. A similar absurdity is in his other critique of sexuality, his critique of prisons. Paglia is really contrary because Foucault used a structuralist arguement while she relied on an a priori argument. The fact that she can't see through her own frames makes me cringe hearing her idiotic rant against Foucault. I use a priori arguments mostly but I do not make the conclusion Paglia makes. Foucault is actually especially useful for the highly nuanced cautious universalist because ignorant forms of universalism is a very popular sophistry.
Well, whatever the controversy he aroused, it seems that Foucault’s personal “human experience” led rather to a personal experience of the “scourge of human existence in the 20th century.” Is it really a scholarly legitimate exercise to experience the antisocial excesses of men (especially) through personal immersion? Or is it excusing impulses to human perversion in oneself?
Exactly right. I don't know how anybody these days can defend him. I don't know how anybody ever could defend him, for he was quite open about his beliefs regarding age of consent laws.
Nobody has ever defended him. The Greek philosophers are still read and respected and were also users of children. Nobody defends these men because there is no need to do such a thing. Everyone knows it is wrong but there is no group that has not done this horrible thing. If anything, Foucault may have given you important tools to undo the deep held religious ideologies- those things are still the main source of support/hiding place for people who hurt children.
And then he personified the ultimate human experience of the 20th century by dying of AIDS. So much for male über experience. Did he also enter the “castle of murder” personally?
I have no space in my head for anyone whom publicised and was proud of sexual relations with young Tunisian boys on gravestones. The most vile of creatures, to abuse defenceless young children is the lowest form of humanity and should have been euthanised for the benefit of society.
1. Introducción a Michel Foucault Minuto: 00:11 Descripción: Michel Foucault es presentado como uno de los pensadores más influyentes del siglo XX, quien exploró temas como la locura, la criminalidad y la perversión, desafiando constantemente los límites del conocimiento y la experiencia. 2. Contexto Intelectual y Relación con Otros Pensadores Minuto: 00:58 Descripción: Se compara a Foucault con otros filósofos franceses de la posguerra, como Roland Barthes y Jacques Derrida, aunque su enfoque único lo distingue al centrarse en la naturaleza de la sociedad más allá del lenguaje. 3. Exploración Filosófica: Transgresión y Desviación Minuto: 01:59 Descripción: Se explora cómo Foucault no solo teorizó sobre la transgresión y la desviación, sino que también vivió sus ideas al experimentar personalmente con el erotismo y las drogas. 4. Vida Personal y Búsqueda de Nuevas Experiencias Minuto: 02:43 Descripción: Foucault no limitó sus exploraciones filosóficas a la teoría, sino que vivió intensamente experiencias más allá de lo cotidiano, como las drogas y el erotismo, para reimaginar su lugar en el mundo. 5. El Impacto de Foucault en la Filosofía Contemporánea Minuto: 03:18 Descripción: Foucault cambió el enfoque de la filosofía contemporánea, alejándose del análisis lingüístico hacia cuestiones fundamentales sobre la vida humana y las estructuras de poder. 6. Historia de la Locura: Exploraciones Genealógicas Minuto: 04:02 Descripción: La tesis de Foucault sobre la locura redefine la relación entre la sociedad y los marginados, demostrando que el trato hacia los locos empeoró a medida que las sociedades se volvieron más "racionales". 7. Vigilar y Castigar: El Sistema Penal Moderno Minuto: 20:17 Descripción: En Vigilar y Castigar, Foucault muestra la evolución del castigo, desde la brutal tortura pública hasta el sistema penitenciario moderno, donde el control se ejerce a través de la vigilancia. 8. La Experiencia en Estados Unidos: LSD y Contracultura Minuto: 26:57 Descripción: Foucault experimentó con LSD en el Valle de la Muerte, lo que marcó un punto de inflexión en su vida y lo llevó a reflexionar sobre temas como el yo y la muerte. 9. Foucault y la Contracultura de San Francisco Minuto: 29:41 Descripción: Se destaca el fascinante descubrimiento de Foucault de la libertad sexual en San Francisco, un entorno que contrastaba con su experiencia previa en Europa. 10. El Legado de Foucault: Muerte y Controversia Minuto: 34:57 Descripción: La muerte de Foucault en 1984, debido al SIDA, estuvo rodeada de controversia, y su legado sigue siendo objeto de debate y reinterpretación.
We have a documentary about a philosopher which has been careful to avoid explaining anything about his actually philosophy. One of Foucault's points was that what we think of as unusual at one time may be completely normal in another. So its irrelevant whether he was gay or used drugs. Another point was that biography teaches us very little about the meaning of an author's work, so a documentary about him being a bit of a bad boy is doubly uninteresting.
And yet no mention whatsoever of Nietzsche despite the title taking the name from his work and despite his influence to Foucault's own writings?? A good documentary but given the title, that omission was a disappointment.
Why is this guy being ascribed qualities which he either lacked or he--contrary to what's presented--actually had? According to the video he was not fond of existentialism, but his notions of self creation are part and parcel of Nietzsche's existentialism. Indeed, one of Nietzsche's books is entitled Beyond Good and Evil. Further, it was stated near the end that Foucault was famed for challenging the nature of "Man," but he was certainly not the only philosopher to shirk "essentialist" types of philosophic inquiry.
ItsPalm It's possible that by 'existentialism' they really mean 'Sartre', who is regarded as the paradigm. Additionally, lots of schools of thought have tried to claim Nietzsche; we may seem him as an early existentialist, but he can also be a radical atheist, a nihilist and/or an anarchist (to name a few) depending on your position.
ItsPalm It's possible that by 'existentialism' they really mean 'Sartre', who is regarded as the paradigm. Additionally, lots of schools of thought have tried to claim Nietzsche; we may seem him as an early existentialist, but he can also be a radical atheist, a nihilist and/or an anarchist (to name a few) depending on your position.
SmalllFarAway Sure, he influenced them, but the way you said ''he can be a nihilist or/and an anarchist'' can make someone unfamiliar with Nietzsche think he supported these; which he doesn't. But yeah, bits of his thinking can be adapted to fit a lot of different movements of thoughts. Hell, even Nazi tried to claim Nietzsche as their own.
OK, he was gay, he lived for a time in San Francisco, went to leather bars, tried drugs and SM. All that stuff may have been terribly shocking at the time, and to some still is. As one who has lived in and around San Francisco since the sixties, it's pretty meh to me. Judge him by his works, not his hobbys.
She is right that he falsified source material and made up fake quotes. As I said, he was brilliant but also a fraud trying to justify his personal worldview.
All that knowledge and all those honorary titles and the best he can do is echo the intellectual territory of de Sade. He has always struck me as a huckster that would have flourished in todays world. Every time I see the moral decay of feces on the sidewalk and needles in plant beds I think … “behold, the fruit of Foucaults wisdom”
Reader, before you watch please understand that you will understand nothing of his works from this film. This is entertainment only. You can see some people below, who could obviously not be said to be doing any real thought, but are entertaining themselves, getting wrapped up in more enjoyment after the movie has ended. Do not be enticed by them. Treat this as you would any mindless indulgence, if you believe in such things.
I have read and absorbed a lot of Foucault. A lot. And I did love this video. Just a few moments of cliche here and there, but so much value is in this please see it.
When the video mentions Foucault's last works as focusing on art, to which works specifically is this referring? History of Sexuality? Also, does anyone know the piano piece being played in the video?
I would say, it’s basically an exercise of their autonomy. Autonomy is a fundamental aspect of being human. Do not be sad or frustrated about that my friend. Some things we like, some we don’t. I personally appreciate history of philosophers:)
Foucault was a great thinker who pushed the boundaries of what is seen as mental illness...and all his experiments with drugs and eroticism etc are very fine when we look at what mental illness is and where it germinates. In fact the work of Stanislav Grof with LSD was exactly on the same lines and that is considered one of the most innovative projects in mental health. How mental health is defined as an outcome of spiritual emergences that can become spiritual emergencies, and how it can be harnessed is what Grof talked about with innumerable evidences of Shamans from the world over. And to those who do not understand about the spirit or mystical world of shamanism or the journey to the underworld, anyone who dares to push the boundaries of inquiry will only appear in-sane. I have my sympathies for those who have not reached that level of comprehension and who have utmost devotion to modern science and its verifiability, irrespective of how ethical it is or how ethically it creates mental illness out of human suffering. In case anyone would like to understand the archaeology of mental illness and how it came to become so, please read Foucault's Madness and Civilization and you will understand how language transforms human experience... of course most social science research thereafter, including my own, is proof of that.
***** Do yourself a favour and write less pretentiously. Recent scientific literature indicates that florid language doesn't actually make you seem intelligent.
I stand on the brink of humanity. ignorance is bliss. I only wish I was stupid. I only wish I could accept death. I strain against it, grinding my teeth at the sights and sounds of the human condition. fighting it. destroying myself to understand what cannot be understood by human beings. I am god. I am the light. I am the absence of good and evil
I don't understand how the wall inscription from Mélanie Bastian/Blanche Monnier who has apparently embryo-rounded Foucault's philosophy, is here read in English. This is Poitier in France. Is it a reconstruction for the purpose of televisualisation?
i disagree with Paglia. where she sees a 'slick, glossy surface' i see range. it's the very specialization that she advocates that makes her academic method weak, for the complete disconnect it causes from the world, a world in which Foucault was NOT afraid to traverse, and with which he's not afraid to deal. academia is full of this sort of coward. her diatribe is a function of her fear, fear that Foucault has undermined the cherished glass house of her academic method.
Anyone who's actually read a word of Paglia will see right away that you haven't. You actually misunderstand her brief "diatribe." (How do you expect anyone to believe that you can comprehend Foucault's writing if you can't understand Paglia's straightforward critique?) She's not a specialist and she doesn't "advocate" for specialization. She's essentially saying, "Speaking as a generalist, he fucked up. He was entirely capable of synthesizing and analyzing all this information, but he barely did his homework." Paglia has read all the same stuff. Her colossal debut, "Sexual Personae," is, at least in terms of its historical reach, more ambitious than Foucault's work. In some ways, what she's doing in "SP" is easier than what Foucault is doing (because you don't know: she's showing how/where/why the Apollo/Dionysus binary shows up in art and culture from ancient Egypt to 19th century America), but that doesn't make it "weak." This is not specialization as it is defined anywhere. You can't mouth off about her "academic method" if you don't know what it is. Go to the library and check out "Sex, Art, and American Culture." Turn to page 120: "Specialization has made mincemeat of the great body of knowledge[. . . .] English departments are split by recruitment 'slots,' a triumph of the minim, producing such atrocities as ads for 'Opening in nondramatic literature, 1660-1740.' What kind of scholar, what kind of teacher could satisfy this sad little mouse-view of culture?" Now enjoy the rest of the book; she's often a wreck when she speaks, but her writing is marvelous.
Paglia, on the basis of her "diatribe", has invented herself on a basis of tying her self into what MF sets out to critique and transcend. Their relation, their respective corpora, their respective lives and life-work, can then only exist in tension. Paglia then eloquently expresses her pole of this tension. We don't get contemporaneous expression of MF's pole of this tension; although we can have some facsimile of that across our respective understandings of MF. The tension is what is important; not judgement on any sense that Paglia might be setting out to annihilate any sense and presence of MF. What Paglia might be there doing, would seem to be what MF again and again to points to society as striving to do with its deviants.
as soon as she responded, in her emotional frenzy, i found her argument to be immediately discredited, because it seemed to be a diatribe of emotional rather than one of intellectual substance.
On the contrary, I think Paglia discredited herself the moment she started claiming that Foucault never read the Greek foundations. He not only read them-he read *many* of them, continually references Greek works throughout his work, and *learned* ancient Greek to read texts as they existed in their original states. Some early citational misteps-which he openly corrects-have, I think, contributed to an overblown reputation of scholarly laziness.
The title along with the use of the term "labyrinth" both being metaphors attaching him to nietzsche, although I'm not sure its accurate to compare the two men. Untimely Meditations is the work that greatly influenced Foucault, yet its not one of Nietzches mature philosophical works such as BGE, GM, T, AC, or EC. Beyond Good and Evil is an extremely ironic title being that Nietzsche absolutely despised socialist, as can be seen multiple times through the book BGE. To Nietzsche, Foucault would fall under the category of the people w/ socialistic sympathies being the fatalism of the weak willed with their inward self-contempt and resentment not compassion as their guiding psychological will.
Musique du film Camille Claudel, de 37,2 aussi... - Je ne suis pas fou Ma réalité est différente de la votre... Antonin Artaud a du leur dire mais ils ne l'ont pas cru...
It's good to question what it is to be human, but that was all a little bazaar? Are we human because we look at the stars or do we look at the stars because we are human?
@@linkqJ If they're as intelligent and sophisticated as you, make sure they have the safety off, and the mags loaded properly. And remember to wash your hands.
Should be more shows like this, giving an overview of great thinkers. Like the arty way its done too - better than dry academics stroking their beards.
Listen to that Camille Paglia 17:46...she is just...so increadably...I got no word for her. She does not seam to understand at all what the man has done on this planet.
For real, what has foucault done? Make it cool to be anti-science and be proud of irrational argumentation? He constantly tried to present rational arguments against rationalism, and failed to convince anyone but Marxist academics and the children they instructed to avoid reason.
Little ironic, considering I have read Foucault, and most of the people attempting to apply his analysis have not even read him and don't even care what he thought... I mean, no thinking person has a problem with saying that power influences how facts are taught. The controversy is any erroneous conclusion that this means facts cannot objectively exist. The real mistakes that foucault makes very closely parallel the mistakes Marx made. If we cannot objectively define or measure prices/sexuality/time that does mean that these things do not objectively exist or that they are arbitrary social constructions. The measure of an objective thing can be subjective. And, no amount of mismeasuring a thing necessarily suggests that it does not exist. Foucault's analysis of power, like Marx's analysis of poverty, completely ignores any and all naturally and inevitable sources. That the original state of most humans in nature is powerless and impoverished is never accounted for. I appreciate Foucault's rejection of moral claims and morality itself, which I agree probably does not exist, and Marx's theory would have made more sense if could have done the same... But both of their philosophies completely ignore the biggest sources of the subjects they attempt to analyze, and therefore have no practical utility. And as a result of the need to insert something more profound into his conclusions, Foucault's strongest influence in modern thought, like Derrida's, is actually a bastardization of his analysis, that frequently claims or implies ideas that he would not have agreed with (the belief in the superiority of marginalized perspectives, for example).
Great Moose Detective I don't know who you've misunderstood worse, Marx or Foucault. You keep repeating some vague bullshit about objective facts, the difficulty of subjective interpretation, evaluation, and power, but this is so fascile that these problems can be used to talk about any writer. Again, Foucault is not simply 'anti-science', any more than he is anti-truth or anti-objective. Whatever you have to say about a certain subset of his readers is really irrelevant to the matter, since blaming Foucault for the way he is read is really just burdening him with the stupidity of others. Not an argument, bucko. Also, Marxists are not convinced by Foucault's arguments. Nor are they allergic to reason. And Foucault constantly disparaged the Marxists of his own time. You're blowing a lot of hot air based on hearsay and confusion.
Indeed there remains the challenge of bridging sober readings of Michel Foucault's critical, theoretical insights into subjectivation and social, critical neuroscience beyond facile formulae that succumb to hypes or spontaneous overreactions to a (misperceived) "bullshit documentary" --this is actually a quite interesting, helpful introduction to making sense of MF's mitigated social constructionism, which avoids both positivistic and post-modernist extremes...
![Rick Roderick on Foucault - The Disappearance of the Human [full length]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hP79SfCfRzo/mqdefault.jpg)
![Rick Roderick on Foucault - The Disappearance of the Human [full length]](/img/tr.png)
It's funny, having learnt Foucault through a French university education in philosophy, that this Anglosaxon perspective completely omits 'Les mots et les choses', translated as 'The Order of Things' - in France, this is often seen among philosophers as the work that defined Foucault's approach. Read it and you understand the method and, of course, the madness in it, that he employed in his other works. For a documentary of only 40 minutes, I'm left wondering whether it wasn't simply the lure of the gory details that drove the film makers, rather than a desire to reveal the man, of whom such details are an integral part, but only one. And also, I would be of those who think the overarching influence of Nietzsche upon his thought should also be included. But a very enjoyable watch, thanks to the uploader.
+Chris Rob I agree. Also nothing much is mentioned about his work on ethics.
+Chris Rob Thanks I am going to read it
Exactly. One of his most beautiful and instigating works. But do you really believe that the mind of the America academia who has numerous suspicious "thinkers" idolized can understand "Les Mots er le Choses"? "Ceci n'est pas un pipe. :)
Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals certainly influenced him
This documentary loves to be dramatic. It's just laughable!
"The madness of desire, insane murders, the most unreasonable passions - all are wisdom since they are a part of the order of nature. Everything that morality and religion, everything that a clumsy society has stifled in man, revives in the castle of murders. There man is finally attuned to his own nature."
--Michael Focault, 'Madness and Civilization'
Good quote. I have been attracted by Taoism, for instance, which has an appeal to a natural order. The natural order would include madness of desire, insanity, murder, unreasonable passions, but they depend on circumstances. For instance, a murder would be in response to circumstances, according to the Taoist view. To commit a murder simply for the fun of it, would not be according to nature. Water and how it behaves is usually the image used to teach about the Tao or the Way. Insanity is a special case, however, but it could be compared to cancer. If both these conditions are untreatable, then there isn't much we can do. How long should the family care for the insane person? When do they turn over their responsibility to the state? This calculation what be a practical one, not simply an emotional one, for the Taoist.
I like the idea that we are all equal -- the murderers, perverts, the insane etc. This is the Catholic view, although not the common practice.
@Carpe Mundo are you saying that the natural order does not include insanity and mental illness?
This quote could easily be attributed to Antonin Artaud
Quoting Madness and Civilization like that can say nothing about the thought of Focault. In the book he is channeling historical views on madness. Thus. The quote could be attributed to any period and any people filtered through the mind of Focault.
This documentary is why I love TH-cam: you can find old gems.
I knew they would have something on Foucault.
yeah, and they let users steal it all and upload it..great buisness model.Fuck youtube.
@@KussePikken666 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@KussePikken666 cringe asf
I love the way this is delivered. Feels ike Old Top Gear.
Were you a drug-dealer?
1:44 could've sworn that Mr. Bean was interviewing Foucault
Havent you seen the Jordan Peterson interview
Same
Finally a documentary on a philosopher which looks not only at the biography, but makes a good effort to bring the ideas as well down to us commoners. Very good.
I think this is the most entertaining documentary I've ever seen. Thank you so much domakesaythink00
If one knew nothing of Foucault before watching this documentary, not much would have changed after watching it. This is all breadth and no depth - Foucault's legacy would have been better served if the makers of this documentary perhaps focused on his theories of sexuality, justice or class. Still, I guess this was watchable.
I would personally rather say his later inquiries about genealogy, parrhesia, the hermeneutics of the self etcetera. At least, is it is depth you're looking for.
If also takes into account that this doc was made in 1993 by the BBC one could enjoy it a bit more, actually, I found it fascinating in context
Thanks for uploading this great doc.
Foucault was a man with an innate desire for justice and truth in that, which I can greatly identify with.
thanks for the upload
UMMM,I'll get back to this. Well presented. Thank-you.
1:46 didn't know Rowan Atkinson was interested in philosophy.
Rowan Atkinson is a Proffessor .
A good solid introduction into Foucault's work.
A doc focusing on the personal life of Foucault. In Foucault's eyes: could there possibly be anything less interesting--more loathesome? He would say this is completely missing the point, an approach pandering to temporal, personal details while caring little for ideas.
People don't tend to like child abusers.
Yes, that's it 🙂.
strange how the image of Buddha was shown when spoken about the discovering of true self, sort of misleading, as the Buddha actually discovered that there is no true self. Hence, end of struggle, start of liberation.
Very interesting! Thanks for that!
i thought it was intentional - they were talking about lack of self
That is not entirely true. The true self is the soul (not the mind), which is connected to the supersoul (= God), therefore it is the same as the supersoul, therefore everyone and everything is God --> liberation.
@@patrickalpha1315 How can one's soul be same as the supersoul's?
Just because they are connected?
@@hasibulislam5005 Yes, all souls are connected and part of the supersoul, which is god.
there's a great wolf sound at the beggining... Enjoy :)
Good introduction to who he was as I begin to read his works. Thanks.
Superb documentary. Thank you for posting.
you're welcome. and nice avatar :)
debyte hi
love the Gabriel Yared music throughout the documentary.
Thanks for sharing this video.
It is a good introductory documentary but it does focus on the more sensational aspects of Foucault's work - ignoring The Archeology of Knowledge, The Order of Things and The Birth of the Clinic. Its time for a new more balanced documentary film of Foucault, or even a film/television series looking at his life and work.
They will come. We are just at the beginning.
I agree - there is a serious lack of good audiovisual content on this philosopher. He deserves better
Agreed. Also almost no one covers his late acceptance of liberal conceptions of Rights theory if for nothing else than a line of defense against wrongful attacks from power.
Yeah, its not fair to your pedophile idol to portray him as the filthy degenerate he was.
@@KinoTechUSA69 I found the gun loving psychopath. Go beat off to your guns and anime and leave the adults to discuss philosophy.
It's wild that this dude had such a huge impact on culture and society.
I like the idea of rejecting "ist, isms" as history shows them not to be the universal truths they were thought to be.
Camille Paglia is totally correct in her criticisms of Foucault. But her criticisms apply equally to her own self-indulgent, half-baked, pseudo-intellectual theories which are designed to shock more than advance knowledge.
chel3SEY they actually don't. She's incredibly factually incorrect about basic things, like claiming Foucault didn't read any of the foundational Greek scholars. He read *many* - he even learned Greek (and German) to be able to read original texts. There's direct Greek content in almost all of his lectures and books.
Nothing Paglia has ever said, has been correct (nor properly argued for). Perhaps that the Earth isn't flat, but that's about it. On a side-note: her way of talking is absolutely repulsive; she constantly interrupts _herself_ as if she's struggling to think coherently about whatever she's mouthing on about.
I keep watching you vids, nice
Verbiage. Mercy. Amen
Could someone please direct me to a link or give me a little more information on Herbert Gilbert (?), this man who filmed himself dying of aids? I can't seem to find any information on him on the internet. Thank you to whoever can point me in this direction!
It's Herve Guibert. 6:29
does anyone know the music at 27:00
A person need only to realize that in Foucault's era people who were diagnosed insane were routinely lobotomiesed, put in restraints, electroshock treatment. He was not the first or only person to criticize the arbitrary ideas of insanity. Laing pointed out the absurdities as well. A similar absurdity is in his other critique of sexuality, his critique of prisons.
Paglia is really contrary because Foucault used a structuralist arguement while she relied on an a priori argument. The fact that she can't see through her own frames makes me cringe hearing her idiotic rant against Foucault.
I use a priori arguments mostly but I do not make the conclusion Paglia makes. Foucault is actually especially useful for the highly nuanced cautious universalist because ignorant forms of universalism is a very popular sophistry.
Well, whatever the controversy he aroused, it seems that Foucault’s personal “human experience” led rather to a personal experience of the “scourge of human existence in the 20th century.” Is it really a scholarly legitimate exercise to experience the antisocial excesses of men (especially) through personal immersion? Or is it excusing impulses to human perversion in oneself?
Exactly right. I don't know how anybody these days can defend him. I don't know how anybody ever could defend him, for he was quite open about his beliefs regarding age of consent laws.
Nobody has ever defended him. The Greek philosophers are still read and respected and were also users of children. Nobody defends these men because there is no need to do such a thing. Everyone knows it is wrong but there is no group that has not done this horrible thing. If anything, Foucault may have given you important tools to undo the deep held religious ideologies- those things are still the main source of support/hiding place for people who hurt children.
I remember watching this when it was first broadcast, they don't make them like this anymore
17:49 "As a scholar, ........" How ironic!!!!
5:53 whats the name of this guy? cant figure it out bcause of the prononciation
Why was Camille Anne Paglia in this? Weird.
She was a fad thinker when this was made.
Why was Mr. Bean interviewing him at the beginning?
Does anyone have a pdf of guibert's secrets of a man? I couldn't find it anywhere.
Camille Paglia is now exclusively known for not having liked Foucault
Wow, this comment has aged poorly. Camille is today far better known than the self-abusive maniac Foucault.
@Left Pantel Greece is a socialist in debt shithole boy.
Nah I know the name as an antifeminist
@@RepublicConstitution uh. no.
@@RichardMcLamore uh, yeah commie bitch.
Anyone know the name of the music at the end?
What is the music ??
Emperors new clothes.
Very impressive individual, managed to fool so many gullible idiots and did it with a smile on his face. 10/10 for style.
And then he personified the ultimate human experience of the 20th century by dying of AIDS. So much for male über experience. Did he also enter the “castle of murder” personally?
I know bait when I see it
I have no space in my head for anyone whom publicised and was proud of sexual relations with young Tunisian boys on gravestones. The most vile of creatures, to abuse defenceless young children is the lowest form of humanity and should have been euthanised for the benefit of society.
Insightful doc, I liked the Ship of fools issue for some reason reminds me of the world partys song Ship of fools
+Rene Perez reminded me of the Grateful Dead song
thanx john!
also reminds one of the Ship of State...
1. Introducción a Michel Foucault
Minuto: 00:11
Descripción: Michel Foucault es presentado como uno de los pensadores más influyentes del siglo XX, quien exploró temas como la locura, la criminalidad y la perversión, desafiando constantemente los límites del conocimiento y la experiencia.
2. Contexto Intelectual y Relación con Otros Pensadores
Minuto: 00:58
Descripción: Se compara a Foucault con otros filósofos franceses de la posguerra, como Roland Barthes y Jacques Derrida, aunque su enfoque único lo distingue al centrarse en la naturaleza de la sociedad más allá del lenguaje.
3. Exploración Filosófica: Transgresión y Desviación
Minuto: 01:59
Descripción: Se explora cómo Foucault no solo teorizó sobre la transgresión y la desviación, sino que también vivió sus ideas al experimentar personalmente con el erotismo y las drogas.
4. Vida Personal y Búsqueda de Nuevas Experiencias
Minuto: 02:43
Descripción: Foucault no limitó sus exploraciones filosóficas a la teoría, sino que vivió intensamente experiencias más allá de lo cotidiano, como las drogas y el erotismo, para reimaginar su lugar en el mundo.
5. El Impacto de Foucault en la Filosofía Contemporánea
Minuto: 03:18
Descripción: Foucault cambió el enfoque de la filosofía contemporánea, alejándose del análisis lingüístico hacia cuestiones fundamentales sobre la vida humana y las estructuras de poder.
6. Historia de la Locura: Exploraciones Genealógicas
Minuto: 04:02
Descripción: La tesis de Foucault sobre la locura redefine la relación entre la sociedad y los marginados, demostrando que el trato hacia los locos empeoró a medida que las sociedades se volvieron más "racionales".
7. Vigilar y Castigar: El Sistema Penal Moderno
Minuto: 20:17
Descripción: En Vigilar y Castigar, Foucault muestra la evolución del castigo, desde la brutal tortura pública hasta el sistema penitenciario moderno, donde el control se ejerce a través de la vigilancia.
8. La Experiencia en Estados Unidos: LSD y Contracultura
Minuto: 26:57
Descripción: Foucault experimentó con LSD en el Valle de la Muerte, lo que marcó un punto de inflexión en su vida y lo llevó a reflexionar sobre temas como el yo y la muerte.
9. Foucault y la Contracultura de San Francisco
Minuto: 29:41
Descripción: Se destaca el fascinante descubrimiento de Foucault de la libertad sexual en San Francisco, un entorno que contrastaba con su experiencia previa en Europa.
10. El Legado de Foucault: Muerte y Controversia
Minuto: 34:57
Descripción: La muerte de Foucault en 1984, debido al SIDA, estuvo rodeada de controversia, y su legado sigue siendo objeto de debate y reinterpretación.
We have a documentary about a philosopher which has been careful to avoid explaining anything about his actually philosophy.
One of Foucault's points was that what we think of as unusual at one time may be completely normal in another. So its irrelevant whether he was gay or used drugs.
Another point was that biography teaches us very little about the meaning of an author's work, so a documentary about him being a bit of a bad boy is doubly uninteresting.
curiosity killed the cat
Excellent documentary biography on Foucault. For anyone even slightly interested or curious about Foucault, this is a must-see.
And yet no mention whatsoever of Nietzsche despite the title taking the name from his work and despite his influence to Foucault's own writings?? A good documentary but given the title, that omission was a disappointment.
Is Allain de Botton a narrator here?
Why is this guy being ascribed qualities which he either lacked or he--contrary to what's presented--actually had? According to the video he was not fond of existentialism, but his notions of self creation are part and parcel of Nietzsche's existentialism. Indeed, one of Nietzsche's books is entitled Beyond Good and Evil. Further, it was stated near the end that Foucault was famed for challenging the nature of "Man," but he was certainly not the only philosopher to shirk "essentialist" types of philosophic inquiry.
ItsPalm It's possible that by 'existentialism' they really mean 'Sartre', who is regarded as the paradigm. Additionally, lots of schools of thought have tried to claim Nietzsche; we may seem him as an early existentialist, but he can also be a radical atheist, a nihilist and/or an anarchist (to name a few) depending on your position.
ItsPalm It's possible that by 'existentialism' they really mean 'Sartre', who is regarded as the paradigm. Additionally, lots of schools of thought have tried to claim Nietzsche; we may seem him as an early existentialist, but he can also be a radical atheist, a nihilist and/or an anarchist (to name a few) depending on your position.
+SmalllFarAway Nietzsche spoke agaist nihilism and anarchism.
a True, but that doesn't stop those schools from adopting bits of his theories
SmalllFarAway Sure, he influenced them, but the way you said ''he can be a nihilist or/and an anarchist'' can make someone unfamiliar with Nietzsche think he supported these; which he doesn't. But yeah, bits of his thinking can be adapted to fit a lot of different movements of thoughts. Hell, even Nazi tried to claim Nietzsche as their own.
OK, he was gay, he lived for a time in San Francisco, went to leather bars, tried drugs and SM. All that stuff may have been terribly shocking at the time, and to some still is. As one who has lived in and around San Francisco since the sixties, it's pretty meh to me. Judge him by his works, not his hobbys.
Hobbies, that's how you call that?^^
How is Foucault different from Genet. (A Thief's Journal)
I never heard nobody say 'play that Camille Paglia'
Why are they playing the sexy sax music from betty blue tho
Why even include Camille Paglia? The irony!!!
She is right that he falsified source material and made up fake quotes. As I said, he was brilliant but also a fraud trying to justify his personal worldview.
Why is it ironic?
All that knowledge and all those honorary titles and the best he can do is echo the intellectual territory of de Sade. He has always struck me as a huckster that would have flourished in todays world. Every time I see the moral decay of feces on the sidewalk and needles in plant beds I think … “behold, the fruit of Foucaults wisdom”
Jesus Ch$%st, what the hell was that? TMZ or Access Hollywood for intellectually moralist?
+Toxinomist It was a Jesus Christ telecast....
Reader, before you watch please understand that you will understand nothing of his works from this film. This is entertainment only. You can see some people below, who could obviously not be said to be doing any real thought, but are entertaining themselves, getting wrapped up in more enjoyment after the movie has ended. Do not be enticed by them. Treat this as you would any mindless indulgence, if you believe in such things.
Camile Paglia gives no detailed reason for her claims.
She is right tho. Foucault engineered his public image and he had no essence and content
This needed more criticism. You can't call him controversial and then give all of 10 seconds to one of his critics (Paglia).
I have read and absorbed a lot of Foucault. A lot. And I did love this video. Just a few moments of cliche here and there, but so much value is in this please see it.
paglia is not taken seriously
hasnt been for decades.
i sincerely hope thats true. she's just awful!
...and you say that on what authority
I'm a fan of her thoughts. Each to their own
Taken seriously by whom?
Wtf are you talking about? She is great
greatly interesting, thank you
When the video mentions Foucault's last works as focusing on art, to which works specifically is this referring? History of Sexuality? Also, does anyone know the piano piece being played in the video?
Can we know why people dislike that video ?
+mister x no...imagine the comments. just let it go....it is what it is.
I would say, it’s basically an exercise of their autonomy. Autonomy is a fundamental aspect of being human. Do not be sad or frustrated about that my friend. Some things we like, some we don’t. I personally appreciate history of philosophers:)
Foucault was a great thinker who pushed the boundaries of what is seen as mental illness...and all his experiments with drugs and eroticism etc are very fine when we look at what mental illness is and where it germinates. In fact the work of Stanislav Grof with LSD was exactly on the same lines and that is considered one of the most innovative projects in mental health. How mental health is defined as an outcome of spiritual emergences that can become spiritual emergencies, and how it can be harnessed is what Grof talked about with innumerable evidences of Shamans from the world over. And to those who do not understand about the spirit or mystical world of shamanism or the journey to the underworld, anyone who dares to push the boundaries of inquiry will only appear in-sane. I have my sympathies for those who have not reached that level of comprehension and who have utmost devotion to modern science and its verifiability, irrespective of how ethical it is or how ethically it creates mental illness out of human suffering.
In case anyone would like to understand the archaeology of mental illness and how it came to become so, please read Foucault's Madness and Civilization and you will understand how language transforms human experience... of course most social science research thereafter, including my own, is proof of that.
*****
Shuuuuuuuuuuttttttttttttttt up
***** A* you've passed!
***** Do yourself a favour and write less pretentiously. Recent scientific literature indicates that florid language doesn't actually make you seem intelligent.
I agree. Disease is a social construction. They really shouldn't have labeled him as someone who died of AIDS like that. Empiricism does not work.
I stand on the brink of humanity. ignorance is bliss. I only wish I was stupid. I only wish I could accept death. I strain against it, grinding my teeth at the sights and sounds of the human condition. fighting it. destroying myself to understand what cannot be understood by human beings. I am god. I am the light. I am the absence of good and evil
yet, all is lost while i travel back, with my message. you are still human. You cannot, you willnot perceive what I do, without your own experience
I don't understand how the wall inscription from Mélanie Bastian/Blanche Monnier who has apparently embryo-rounded Foucault's philosophy, is here read in English. This is Poitier in France. Is it a reconstruction for the purpose of televisualisation?
9:07 Bookmark
who is the presenter?
is this part of a series?
Folks, please, the name of the piece playing at the beggining....? Anyone :(
oh cool haven't notice that, thanks a lot! (:
lada zimina
You are welcome :)
Did the guy say fuck? 3:47
Is it possible to escape solipsism, if the theory is taken fully? Or is that just another construct?
Can anyone please lead me to the full video of the theatre of the absurd part. Who is that? And where can I find it?
Check your nearest dumpster. 😉
@@cliffpinchon2832 ok
i disagree with Paglia. where she sees a 'slick, glossy surface' i see range. it's the very specialization that she advocates that makes her academic method weak, for the complete disconnect it causes from the world, a world in which Foucault was NOT afraid to traverse, and with which he's not afraid to deal. academia is full of this sort of coward. her diatribe is a function of her fear, fear that Foucault has undermined the cherished glass house of her academic method.
very true. a 'human becoming' perhaps...as if his life were his art, his philosophy. this doc makes it clear that these labels fall grievously short!
Anyone who's actually read a word of Paglia will see right away that you haven't. You actually misunderstand her brief "diatribe." (How do you expect anyone to believe that you can comprehend Foucault's writing if you can't understand Paglia's straightforward critique?) She's not a specialist and she doesn't "advocate" for specialization. She's essentially saying, "Speaking as a generalist, he fucked up. He was entirely capable of synthesizing and analyzing all this information, but he barely did his homework." Paglia has read all the same stuff. Her colossal debut, "Sexual Personae," is, at least in terms of its historical reach, more ambitious than Foucault's work. In some ways, what she's doing in "SP" is easier than what Foucault is doing (because you don't know: she's showing how/where/why the Apollo/Dionysus binary shows up in art and culture from ancient Egypt to 19th century America), but that doesn't make it "weak." This is not specialization as it is defined anywhere. You can't mouth off about her "academic method" if you don't know what it is. Go to the library and check out "Sex, Art, and American Culture." Turn to page 120: "Specialization has made mincemeat of the great body of knowledge[. . . .] English departments are split by recruitment 'slots,' a triumph of the minim, producing such atrocities as ads for 'Opening in nondramatic literature, 1660-1740.' What kind of scholar, what kind of teacher could satisfy this sad little mouse-view of culture?" Now enjoy the rest of the book; she's often a wreck when she speaks, but her writing is marvelous.
Paglia, on the basis of her "diatribe", has invented herself on a basis of tying her self into what MF sets out to critique and transcend. Their relation, their respective corpora, their respective lives and life-work, can then only exist in tension. Paglia then eloquently expresses her pole of this tension. We don't get contemporaneous expression of MF's pole of this tension; although we can have some facsimile of that across our respective understandings of MF. The tension is what is important; not judgement on any sense that Paglia might be setting out to annihilate any sense and presence of MF. What Paglia might be there doing, would seem to be what MF again and again to points to society as striving to do with its deviants.
as soon as she responded, in her emotional frenzy, i found her argument to be immediately discredited, because it seemed to be a diatribe of emotional rather than one of intellectual substance.
On the contrary, I think Paglia discredited herself the moment she started claiming that Foucault never read the Greek foundations. He not only read them-he read *many* of them, continually references Greek works throughout his work, and *learned* ancient Greek to read texts as they existed in their original states. Some early citational misteps-which he openly corrects-have, I think, contributed to an overblown reputation of scholarly laziness.
Nice film about #foucault 's life, but more of his theories would be nice.
4:21 "... within them, there is a mirror image of #society..."
26:49 "... 1975 ... America... Death Valley..."
So what otherway would you arrange classrooms? Much heat, little light,
Always try to answer your own rhetorical questions.
17>50 That Camille Paglia was somehow suggesting Michel Foucault was the Saul Goodman of Philosophy in that time lol
un genio.
lol the projections on the bald head
The title along with the use of the term "labyrinth" both being metaphors attaching him to nietzsche, although I'm not sure its accurate to compare the two men. Untimely Meditations is the work that greatly influenced Foucault, yet its not one of Nietzches mature philosophical works such as BGE, GM, T, AC, or EC. Beyond Good and Evil is an extremely ironic title being that Nietzsche absolutely despised socialist, as can be seen multiple times through the book BGE. To Nietzsche, Foucault would fall under the category of the people w/ socialistic sympathies being the fatalism of the weak willed with their inward self-contempt and resentment not compassion as their guiding psychological will.
Paglia is wrong. This video points toward a lot that is dead on as it were.
Musique du film Camille Claudel, de 37,2 aussi...
- Je ne suis pas fou
Ma réalité est différente de la votre...
Antonin Artaud a du leur dire mais ils ne l'ont pas cru...
was that mr. bean seated across foucault??? :))
It's good to question what it is to be human, but that was all a little bazaar? Are we human because we look at the stars or do we look at the stars because we are human?
Both. If you believe we are the children of stars. Thats a dilemma.
The 30 seconds of Camille Paglia sees right through him.
Ironically hilarious to hear Paglia bark about someone being slick and superficial...
shut the fuck up
@Carpe Mundo Better to remain silent be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.
@@linkqJ Thanks for sharing. You're appreciated for who you are.
@@mikesmith-pj7xz got a 150 shooters in atlanta nigga
@@linkqJ If they're as intelligent and sophisticated as you, make sure they have the safety off, and the mags loaded properly. And remember to wash your hands.
I want a deceitfully peaceful quiet life/
This is exactly the king of crap Foucault would have hated, and I hate it on his behalf.
That was written 10 minutes in. Of course, I kept watching
I've never seen any other documentary of a philosopher. You can't expected a 40 min video to capture all his books and articles etc.
Being pissed on is not going "beyond good and evil".
Long live Foucault!
care to elaborate?
Should be more shows like this, giving an overview of great thinkers. Like the arty way its done too - better than dry academics stroking their beards.
Their food filled beards.
I see his death, paradoxically, as more “alive” and real than the soap opera scandalised characters unaware of their own madness. Tragic.
8
I will not elaborate. I recommend not to pay attention to this document, that is all I can do here
Y
Listen to that Camille Paglia 17:46...she is just...so increadably...I got no word for her. She does not seam to understand at all what the man has done on this planet.
she's an academic hypocrite
For real, what has foucault done? Make it cool to be anti-science and be proud of irrational argumentation? He constantly tried to present rational arguments against rationalism, and failed to convince anyone but Marxist academics and the children they instructed to avoid reason.
Great Moose Detective Wrong on every count. Read a fucking book you philistine.
Little ironic, considering I have read Foucault, and most of the people attempting to apply his analysis have not even read him and don't even care what he thought...
I mean, no thinking person has a problem with saying that power influences how facts are taught. The controversy is any erroneous conclusion that this means facts cannot objectively exist. The real mistakes that foucault makes very closely parallel the mistakes Marx made. If we cannot objectively define or measure prices/sexuality/time that does mean that these things do not objectively exist or that they are arbitrary social constructions. The measure of an objective thing can be subjective. And, no amount of mismeasuring a thing necessarily suggests that it does not exist.
Foucault's analysis of power, like Marx's analysis of poverty, completely ignores any and all naturally and inevitable sources. That the original state of most humans in nature is powerless and impoverished is never accounted for. I appreciate Foucault's rejection of moral claims and morality itself, which I agree probably does not exist, and Marx's theory would have made more sense if could have done the same... But both of their philosophies completely ignore the biggest sources of the subjects they attempt to analyze, and therefore have no practical utility.
And as a result of the need to insert something more profound into his conclusions, Foucault's strongest influence in modern thought, like Derrida's, is actually a bastardization of his analysis, that frequently claims or implies ideas that he would not have agreed with (the belief in the superiority of marginalized perspectives, for example).
Great Moose Detective I don't know who you've misunderstood worse, Marx or Foucault. You keep repeating some vague bullshit about objective facts, the difficulty of subjective interpretation, evaluation, and power, but this is so fascile that these problems can be used to talk about any writer.
Again, Foucault is not simply 'anti-science', any more than he is anti-truth or anti-objective. Whatever you have to say about a certain subset of his readers is really irrelevant to the matter, since blaming Foucault for the way he is read is really just burdening him with the stupidity of others. Not an argument, bucko.
Also, Marxists are not convinced by Foucault's arguments. Nor are they allergic to reason. And Foucault constantly disparaged the Marxists of his own time. You're blowing a lot of hot air based on hearsay and confusion.
No tiene :(
He walked the walk
Indeed there remains the challenge of bridging sober readings of Michel Foucault's critical, theoretical insights into subjectivation and social, critical neuroscience beyond facile formulae that succumb to hypes or spontaneous overreactions to a (misperceived) "bullshit documentary" --this is actually a quite interesting, helpful introduction to making sense of MF's mitigated social constructionism, which avoids both positivistic and post-modernist extremes...
que massa, Nita.